RE autocephaly. At least we have this to look forward to: after they do eventually iron things out, we probably won't have to worry about it for awhile, since all the land on earth has been discovered. Let's just hold our Orthodox Berlin Conference and get it over with.

(Until we start emigrating to Mars, that is. Imagine the mess when we have five competing Metropolitans of Albor and All Elysium.)

Oh please! We can't keep order on this one planet....let's not branch out and bring chaos to the whole universe!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Oh please! We can't keep order on this one planet....let's not branch out and bring chaos to the whole universe!

I believe Rome has already scoped that area out. Universal biscopric and all.

I have not been within Orthodoxy for long enough to really comment about the goodness of the council. I am hesitant about the whole thing for fear that it will turn out to be an Orthodox reinactment of Vatican II (which was called for non-theological reasons but served to muddy the waters of theology more than any other event in the western churches), and I have my concerns about how the OCA will be treated. i fear Russia and Constantinople will finally have those words they've been avoiding for so long. I'm afraid praxis will be redefined in looser, more *ahem* ecumenical terms. I'm afraid we will have an Orthodox Lefabre.

But fear does me no good. Prayer, however, if the Fathers of the Church are to be believed, can be a powerful thing. So I will pray for this council.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

There has never been a standard, canonical practice for how autocephaly or autonomy should be granted. The work of the Preparatory Commission came to a stand still in the 70s because agreement could not be reached.

Over the last year, however, the hierarchs have come to an agreement: All autocephalies, initiated by a Mother Church, must be universally agreed upon and the tomos must be signed by the primates of all Orthodox Churches.

That's the procedure, already agreed upon in the previous meeting. Now, in this meeting, they will determine what a tomos should actually contain.

Quite honestly, far more progress than I ever expected. Ten years ago, I would have said this would never happen.

LOL. You talk as if it has happened and the commemorative icon written.

your "agreement" has the problem that it is not universally agreed upon, nor signed by the primates of all Orthodox Churches.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I have to agree with Alveus, this is a pretty useless council that does not seem to address any spiritual issues or heresies. I don't see much good coming from it.

I disagree. We have multiple bishops in the same cities and claiming jurisdiction over the same area. We have three churches in my city that fall under three different bishops of three different synods. What's worse is this situation isn't just limited to America, as Orthodoxy has started to spread it touches just about everywhere that has not been traditionally Orthodox for the last thousand years. This is not OK and it is not Orthodox.

There is the situation with the OCA. OCA bishops are not members of the MP synod, regardless of what anyone's personal opinion about the subject is. The OCA functinos as it's own synod and doesn't answer to any other synod in particular as a mother church. If you walk into an OCA church you will normally hear the local bishop and Met Jonah commemorated.

There is the issue of how autocephaly is granted. There is no agreed on method of how a church's identity is accepted or acknowledged. This should be fixed.

There is the issue of how converts should be received into the church. I know someone who went to a church, was told they had to be baptized, and then went to another church and was told they only need to be chrismated.

Why on earth would anyone not want these issues to be resolved? It's certainly not pointless.

You have three churches in your city that fall under three different bishops of three different synods who are in communion with each other (I assUme). You can very easily end up having three churches in your city that fall under three different bishops of three different synods that are not in communion with each other.

Your last point is quite true.

I am old enough to remember when that was the case among us in my little part of the world with the UOC, Metropolia, MP Patriarchal, GOA, ACROD, ROCOR and others, at varying times over those years not communing with one or even all of the mentioned groups.

When my brother recently went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land with his friend, the local OCA priest (who was the tour guide) he was told by the tour guide that since my brother was a priest in ACROD under the EP that he would be allowed to be one of the many priests at the Holy Sepulchre who could vest and 'participate' in the Sunday Liturgy. He brought papers from our Chancery to attest to his 'bona fides'. The OCA priest told him that he, being from the OCA, would not be so permitted. (Ironically, no one was checking papers at the door and they both were let 'in' to participate.)

That being said, given the administrative turmoil that does surround all of us, a genuine attempt on a world wide basis to come to some sort of consensus on these types of issues alone seems worth a try.

LOL. You talk as if it has happened and the commemorative icon written.

It would be helpful if you could put aside your sarcasm and blinders--even once--to actually have a discussion. That would require paying attention to what people write. (A lot to ask, I know.)

I'm discussing what the Preparatory Commission has done and plans to do. Not what will or won't happen at the putative Pan-Orthodox Synod itself (if it ever happens), or what will or won't happen thereafter. I'm surprised that the commission itself, as presently constituted, has reached this level of agreement. That's all.

But that doesn't lend itself to off-topic crusades, does it?

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

I have to agree with Alveus, this is a pretty useless council that does not seem to address any spiritual issues or heresies. I don't see much good coming from it.

I disagree. We have multiple bishops in the same cities and claiming jurisdiction over the same area. We have three churches in my city that fall under three different bishops of three different synods. What's worse is this situation isn't just limited to America, as Orthodoxy has started to spread it touches just about everywhere that has not been traditionally Orthodox for the last thousand years. This is not OK and it is not Orthodox.

There is the situation with the OCA. OCA bishops are not members of the MP synod, regardless of what anyone's personal opinion about the subject is. The OCA functinos as it's own synod and doesn't answer to any other synod in particular as a mother church. If you walk into an OCA church you will normally hear the local bishop and Met Jonah commemorated.

There is the issue of how autocephaly is granted. There is no agreed on method of how a church's identity is accepted or acknowledged. This should be fixed.

There is the issue of how converts should be received into the church. I know someone who went to a church, was told they had to be baptized, and then went to another church and was told they only need to be chrismated.

Why on earth would anyone not want these issues to be resolved? It's certainly not pointless.

You have three churches in your city that fall under three different bishops of three different synods who are in communion with each other (I assUme). You can very easily end up having three churches in your city that fall under three different bishops of three different synods that are not in communion with each other.

Your last point is quite true.

I am old enough to remember when that was the case among us in my little part of the world with the UOC, Metropolia, MP Patriarchal, GOA, ACROD, ROCOR and others, at varying times over those years not communing with one or even all of the mentioned groups.

When my brother recently went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land with his friend, the local OCA priest (who was the tour guide) he was told by the tour guide that since my brother was a priest in ACROD under the EP that he would be allowed to be one of the many priests at the Holy Sepulchre who could vest and 'participate' in the Sunday Liturgy. He brought papers from our Chancery to attest to his 'bona fides'. The OCA priest told him that he, being from the OCA, would not be so permitted. (Ironically, no one was checking papers at the door and they both were let 'in' to participate.)

That being said, given the administrative turmoil that does surround all of us, a genuine attempt on a world wide basis to come to some sort of consensus on these types of issues alone seems worth a try.

"Genuine"-that's the key word.

There are enough "genuine" actors in this, including IMHO Arb. Demetrios in our neck fo the woods, but I don't think it includes many who are promoting and pushing this whole thing. But once the snow ball starts rolling, hopefully they will be crushed by it.

I saw the original draft of what? the 60's or 70's? for this council, and it wasn't substantially different from what was issued in 2009. Who or what lit a fire under the Phanar to dust off the documents and make a mad dash to getting something signed?

« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 12:08:17 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I saw the original draft of what? the 60's or 70's? for this council, and it wasn't substantially different from what was issued in 2009. Who or what lit a fire under the Phanar to dust off the documents and make a mad dash to getting something signed?

I don't know what will come of any of this, but it can't be ignored that the fall of Communism and the more recent reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP were major milestones for inter-Orthodox relations since the 60s and 70s. It is hard to imagine such a council happening in the midst of the subjugation of so many local churches under the Soviet regime, and equally difficult to imagine such a council occurring in the turbulent period immediately after the fall of the Soviet regime. Nearly all of the problems in the contemporary Orthodox world, including the calendar confusion, the Metropolia schism, overlapping jurisdictions, the lifting of anathemas, ecumenistic excesses, a multitude of schisms, etc., occurred because the Church in Russia was not free to express its voice or exercise its authority during the Soviet era. Unfortunately, many of these contemporary problems developed precisely at the instigation of the Ecumenical Patriarchs during this period. Now the Church in Russia is free and the Patriarch of Moscow is regaining its position of authority in the Orthodox world. With this resurrection of the Church in Russia, the many problems that developed during the Communist era can realistically begin to be dealt with. Let us hope and pray that they are dealt with, and that we see a new flowering of Orthodoxy throughout the world on a firm canonical, dogmatic, and spiritual foundation.

Of course, the parallel doesn't work perfectly, because we don't have a central figure whose existence defines communion, despite what the Phanar (or Met. Philip here in the States) sometimes appears to think.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 01:32:43 PM by Agabus »

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

I see nothing wrong with the current situation other than the fact that we have "synods" and the like. Right now there are five Orthodox Churches in Omaha, yet there is no Bishop of Omaha. None of the so called "Ruling Bishops" live within 200 miles of Omaha. Now, the issue of having three Orthodox bishops in the same town may be an issue (it really does not have to be), but to have a city with five Churches and no Bishop is quite unacceptable. To me, all "juridictional unity" is about is a bunch of power hungry (and money hungry) clerics trying to grab as much power and money base as they can get their hands on. As to spiritual care, I don't think it even registers. Most of the Bishops that I have respect for don't worry about jurisdiction. They are more worried about souls. And if someone is under another Orthodox Bishop, they tend not to worry too much.

I saw the original draft of what? the 60's or 70's? for this council, and it wasn't substantially different from what was issued in 2009. Who or what lit a fire under the Phanar to dust off the documents and make a mad dash to getting something signed?

I don't know what will come of any of this, but it can't be ignored that the fall of Communism and the more recent reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP were major milestones for inter-Orthodox relations since the 60s and 70s. It is hard to imagine such a council happening in the midst of the subjugation of so many local churches under the Soviet regime, and equally difficult to imagine such a council occurring in the turbulent period immediately after the fall of the Soviet regime. Nearly all of the problems in the contemporary Orthodox world, including the calendar confusion, the Metropolia schism, overlapping jurisdictions, the lifting of anathemas, ecumenistic excesses, a multitude of schisms, etc., occurred because the Church in Russia was not free to express its voice or exercise its authority during the Soviet era. Unfortunately, many of these contemporary problems developed precisely at the instigation of the Ecumenical Patriarchs during this period. Now the Church in Russia is free and the Patriarch of Moscow is regaining its position of authority in the Orthodox world. With this resurrection of the Church in Russia, the many problems that developed during the Communist era can realistically begin to be dealt with. Let us hope and pray that they are dealt with, and that we see a new flowering of Orthodoxy throughout the world on a firm canonical, dogmatic, and spiritual foundation.

...it's a bit presumptuous of you to state that without the Russian Orthodox Church, all other Orthodox are not up to par. That's a bit belittling, don't you think? You seem to put the MP above all other Patriarchs. Why is that? Aren't we all equal?

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

ROC is the largest of the Orthodox bodies. It is also a "free" church in an Orthodox country with Orthodox leaders. In addition, it did not fall to the Calendar issue and it remains in sync with the historical Church, the majority of current Orthodox people, and the Church Triumphant. The same can be said of many of the Slavic Churches. No, we are all not the same. I would think that whatever happens to the largest "denomination" of the Orthodox Church would have a VERY large bearing on Orthodoxy as a whole. In fact, I think that a lot of the problems within Orthodoxy stem from one of the smallest, captive and least significant "denominations" within Orthodoxy trying to exert an undue amount of influence on the rest of the Church. Personally, I do regard the MP/ROCOR higher than I do the most of the other Churches, and for the reasons I mentioned. However, there are other Churches that I regard nearly as highly.

I saw the original draft of what? the 60's or 70's? for this council, and it wasn't substantially different from what was issued in 2009. Who or what lit a fire under the Phanar to dust off the documents and make a mad dash to getting something signed?

I don't know what will come of any of this, but it can't be ignored that the fall of Communism and the more recent reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP were major milestones for inter-Orthodox relations since the 60s and 70s. It is hard to imagine such a council happening in the midst of the subjugation of so many local churches under the Soviet regime, and equally difficult to imagine such a council occurring in the turbulent period immediately after the fall of the Soviet regime. Nearly all of the problems in the contemporary Orthodox world, including the calendar confusion, the Metropolia schism, overlapping jurisdictions, the lifting of anathemas, ecumenistic excesses, a multitude of schisms, etc., occurred because the Church in Russia was not free to express its voice or exercise its authority during the Soviet era. Unfortunately, many of these contemporary problems developed precisely at the instigation of the Ecumenical Patriarchs during this period. Now the Church in Russia is free and the Patriarch of Moscow is regaining its position of authority in the Orthodox world. With this resurrection of the Church in Russia, the many problems that developed during the Communist era can realistically begin to be dealt with. Let us hope and pray that they are dealt with, and that we see a new flowering of Orthodoxy throughout the world on a firm canonical, dogmatic, and spiritual foundation.

...it's a bit presumptuous of you to state that without the Russian Orthodox Church, all other Orthodox are not up to par. That's a bit belittling, don't you think? You seem to put the MP above all other Patriarchs. Why is that? Aren't we all equal?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

ROC is the largest of the Orthodox bodies. It is also a "free" church in an Orthodox country with Orthodox leaders. In addition, it did not fall to the Calendar issue and it remains in sync with the historical Church, the majority of current Orthodox people, and the Church Triumphant.

Only if appearance trumps substance. But let's leave this aside for the moment.

The same can be said of many of the Slavic Churches. No, we are all not the same. I would think that whatever happens to the largest "denomination" of the Orthodox Church would have a VERY large bearing on Orthodoxy as a whole. In fact, I think that a lot of the problems within Orthodoxy stem from one of the smallest, captive and least significant "denominations" within Orthodoxy trying to exert an undue amount of influence on the rest of the Church. Personally, I do regard the MP/ROCOR higher than I do the most of the other Churches, and for the reasons I mentioned. However, there are other Churches that I regard nearly as highly.

Indirectly or directly, except for Cyprus and Georgia, all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches of today owe a debt to the Church of Russia for their present existence.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Those who have gone on before us are known as the Church Triumphant, while those in this life are known as the Church Militant.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Those who have gone on before us are known as the Church Triumphant, while those in this life are known as the Church Militant.

It's it a RC theory?

Yes.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

I've always been taught that the Orthodox Church is comprised of both the Triumphant and Militant....as we don't exclude our dead, but, pray for them, etc. That the departed saints are still among us....and are all are considered to be part of the Church.

Wow. RC, huh? (I've been propagating RC teachings!?!???)

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

I've always been taught that the Orthodox Church is comprised of both the Triumphant and Militant....as we don't exclude our dead, but, pray for them, etc. That the departed saints are still among us....and are all are considered to be part of the Church.

Wow. RC, huh? (I've been propagating RC teachings!?!???)

It might be something we picked up during the Western Captivity. It's not exactly heterodox.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I've always been taught that the Orthodox Church is comprised of both the Triumphant and Militant....as we don't exclude our dead, but, pray for them, etc. That the departed saints are still among us....and are all are considered to be part of the Church.

Wow. RC, huh? (I've been propagating RC teachings!?!???)

The language selection is likely RC, but the idea that the Church is made up of seen and unseen parts together, that the saints dwell with us (i.e. the Universe isn't a 2 or 3 story house - earth, heaven, maybe hell - but a 1 story house), etc. that goes along with the terminology use is generally Orthodox.

(I only say "generally" to protect myself in case there's something that I've not heard myself that is associated with the terms and is not Orthodox.)

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

ROC is the largest of the Orthodox bodies. It is also a "free" church in an Orthodox country with Orthodox leaders. In addition, it did not fall to the Calendar issue and it remains in sync with the historical Church, the majority of current Orthodox people, and the Church Triumphant. The same can be said of many of the Slavic Churches. No, we are all not the same. I would think that whatever happens to the largest "denomination" of the Orthodox Church would have a VERY large bearing on Orthodoxy as a whole. In fact, I think that a lot of the problems within Orthodoxy stem from one of the smallest, captive and least significant "denominations" within Orthodoxy trying to exert an undue amount of influence on the rest of the Church. Personally, I do regard the MP/ROCOR higher than I do the most of the other Churches, and for the reasons I mentioned. However, there are other Churches that I regard nearly as highly.

I saw the original draft of what? the 60's or 70's? for this council, and it wasn't substantially different from what was issued in 2009. Who or what lit a fire under the Phanar to dust off the documents and make a mad dash to getting something signed?

I don't know what will come of any of this, but it can't be ignored that the fall of Communism and the more recent reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP were major milestones for inter-Orthodox relations since the 60s and 70s. It is hard to imagine such a council happening in the midst of the subjugation of so many local churches under the Soviet regime, and equally difficult to imagine such a council occurring in the turbulent period immediately after the fall of the Soviet regime. Nearly all of the problems in the contemporary Orthodox world, including the calendar confusion, the Metropolia schism, overlapping jurisdictions, the lifting of anathemas, ecumenistic excesses, a multitude of schisms, etc., occurred because the Church in Russia was not free to express its voice or exercise its authority during the Soviet era. Unfortunately, many of these contemporary problems developed precisely at the instigation of the Ecumenical Patriarchs during this period. Now the Church in Russia is free and the Patriarch of Moscow is regaining its position of authority in the Orthodox world. With this resurrection of the Church in Russia, the many problems that developed during the Communist era can realistically begin to be dealt with. Let us hope and pray that they are dealt with, and that we see a new flowering of Orthodoxy throughout the world on a firm canonical, dogmatic, and spiritual foundation.

...it's a bit presumptuous of you to state that without the Russian Orthodox Church, all other Orthodox are not up to par. That's a bit belittling, don't you think? You seem to put the MP above all other Patriarchs. Why is that? Aren't we all equal?

So you do not think that the EP has the highest honor and influence among the current patriarchs?

The terminology itself "Church Triumphant" and "Church Militant" are distinctions of the Roman Catholic Church. It's "compatible" with Orthodoxy ("not exactly heterodox", as isa said). I personally don't like it because such linguistic ditchotomy, in my own opinion, causes us to split up in our minds the idea of the living in Christ and the dead in Christ.

Surely some have marked out the race before us (Heb. 11) but there are not two churches, a militant one and a triumphant one...but One Church of Christ united in life through his death and resurrection (though you die you shall live). Let us not think of the saints as far off and distant relatives of the past, they are active in the world today as members of Christ's Church. I just feel like this distinction lends itself too easily to that way of thinking. That's all.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

The wording is probably a leftover of my Lutheran days. My understanding is, I believe, Orthodox. I believe that there is only one Church, one Body of Christ. I also believe that the Saints are with us and that they pray for us and we to them. However, there is no question that we are bound by time and space and are working toward our Salvation while the Saints are not bound by time or space and are, at least as I understand it, saved. I also believe that at the Liturgy, the fullness of the Church is present, both those in heaven and those still on Earth, regardless of where the Liturgy is served and in what time zone. I still use the term Church Militant to describe those of us still in our Earthly bodies and still squabbling over issues like jurisdiction while I use the term Church Triumphant to describe those that have left the shackles of our bodies and now are fully unitied with Christ and without our ability to sin. They are also all in the same jurisdiction, I would think If there is better terminology, I am fully open to using it.

I've always been taught that the Orthodox Church is comprised of both the Triumphant and Militant....as we don't exclude our dead, but, pray for them, etc. That the departed saints are still among us....and are all are considered to be part of the Church.

Wow. RC, huh? (I've been propagating RC teachings!?!???)

It might be something we picked up during the Western Captivity. It's not exactly heterodox.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

So you do not think that the EP has the highest honor and influence among the current patriarchs?

Strictly canonically speaking, and with respect to the diptychs, I'm sure no EO person can deny that the EP has the highest honor. However, attributing the spirit of the principle of the primacy of honor to a different See has some legitimacy. If we were to apply the reasoning why the EP was originally elevated to 2nd place and then 1st after Rome broke off, then the EP would currently certainly fail the test, and Moscow would be an obvious candidate.

From an OO perspective, I view the Coptic Pope as canonically having the first rank of honor, but I do not believe he would be such if we applied the original spirit of these rankings. Perhaps the Ethiopian Patriarch would. Perhaps the Armenian Catholicos would. I'm not sure.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

So you do not think that the EP has the highest honor and influence among the current patriarchs?

That is correct. I believe that Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will be no fourth.

i do not buy that.

Well, there is certainly room for questioning it. Not all the same qualities which led to Constantinople being instituted as the Second Rome can be applied to Moscow. For instance, Moscow was never part of the Roman (including the period after the fall of the Western Empire, sometimes called "Byzantine") Empire like Old Rome and Constantinople both were.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Either way, whoever has the most 'power' or 'influence' or 'honor' should mean little, since each Patriarch has rule over their own jurisdiction, and not over any others. In the council, one Patriarch's opinion should be considered as valid as any another, and majority rule should carry more weight than individual opinion. That's what I think, anways.

So you do not think that the EP has the highest honor and influence among the current patriarchs?

That is correct. I believe that Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will be no fourth.

Alas, not all of us see either modern or historical Russia through rose colored glasses. That seems to be a relatively common affliction for westerners who 'fall in love' with things Russian, regardless of who is or was running the place.

like i've posted before, i'm a RC straonlgly drawn to the OC. Until I took instructions I didn't guess that there were so many cross jurisdictional squabbles. I would hold out hope for the council. As it is, I am going to visit western rite church of which there are several in houston as well as Byzantine rite services in English. Echoing some on this board, I hope they don't change central traditions in favor of being "relavent" whatever that means. pray for me in making a decison on which way to go. It is confusing.

like i've posted before, i'm a RC straonlgly drawn to the OC. Until I took instructions I didn't guess that there were so many cross jurisdictional squabbles. I would hold out hope for the council. As it is, I am going to visit western rite church of which there are several in houston as well as Byzantine rite services in English. Echoing some on this board, I hope they don't change central traditions in favor of being "relavent" whatever that means. pray for me in making a decison on which way to go. It is confusing.

You might be the most familiar with the mass at St Paul Orhtodox Church, coming from a RC background. Their web site says they use the Liturgy of St Gregory which is for the most part a latin mass in english. I think by "relevant" they mean using a western rite of worship in a traditionally western culture.

Now, the issue of having three Orthodox bishops in the same town may be an issue (it really does not have to be), but to have a city with five Churches and no Bishop is quite unacceptable.

I totally agree with this. Kansas City has seven Orthodox parishes and one mission parish w/o a priest. This city needs a bishop. I feel like a lot of the jurisdictional stuff would honestly just naturally fall away in the next hundred years or so and that people would simply rally around the local bishop. In my city there are three Serbian parishes, two Greek, one OCA, one Antiochian and one ROCOR mission. So really, I guess about half of the city is on the Old Calendar! There is a ton of cooperation and concelebration, and there is a natural love between the parishes. I think if our city had a bishop then over time administrative unity would be a natural reality. I'm not sure having a council hand down a ruling on the matter is necessary or the best idea. Honestly, I agree that most of these problems have to do with bishops being hungry for power and prestige. Lord, have mercy.

The ancient churches in the first two centuries were often very small communities, and they got bishops just the same. America is a missionary field, and we deserve local bishops in major cities. They might not get to wear the deluxe golden-icon necklaces, but they would be loved.

we don't have a central figure whose existence defines communion, despite what the Phanar (or Met. Philip here in the States) sometimes appears to think.

What "the Phanar" and Met. Phillip think is that there IS a central figure whose existence defines communion: Christ.You may disagree, but that is what the Orthodox Church thinks.

Do tell Chief Secretary Elpidophoros and his friends. They keep on talking about some "primus" figure.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth